WASHINGTON -- The Federal Election Commission has recently made public
its final action on 14 matters previously under review (MURs). This release contains only
disposition information.

Specific released documents placed on the public record within
the following closed MURs are cited following DISPOSITION heading. Release of these
documents is consistent with the district court opinion in the December 19, 2001, decision
of AFL-CIO v. FEC, now on appeal to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Once an appellate
decision is rendered, the Commission will review documents related to cases released in
the interim.

[re: any provision of the Federal Election Campaign Act or Commission regulations with
regard to this matter]

(oo-bg) Take no action*

DOCUMENTS ON PUBLIC RECORD:

First General Counsels Report; certification of vote by
Commissioners (dated June 9, 1998); General Counsels Report (dated April 23, 2001);
certification of vote by Commissioners (May 17, 2001); Statement of Reasons by
Commissioner Sandstrom; Statement of Reasons by Commissioners Thomas and McDonald;
Statement of Reasons by Commissioner Smith

3.

MUR 4825

RESPONDENTS:

(a) A Lot of People Who Want Gex Williams in Congress Committee, Daryl
Wolking, treasurer

(b) Gex Williams

(c) Dr. Arthur Nitz

COMPLAINANT:

Dennis Repenning, Esq.

SUBJECT:

Excessive contribution

DISPOSITION:

(a-c) Reason to believe, but took no further action*

DOCUMENTS ON PUBLIC RECORD:

General Counsels Report #3, certification of vote by Commissioners
(dated March 20, 2002)

First General Counsels Report; corrected certification of vote by
Commissioners (dated February 28, 2001); General Counsels Report #4; certification
of vote by Commissioners (dated September 10, 2002)

5.

MUR 5246

RESPONDENTS:

California State Republican Party, Douglas R. Boyd, Sr., treasurer

COMPLAINANT:

FEC Initiated

SUBJECT:

Failure to locate prior written authorization from the RNC to spend any
amount of the RNCs coordinated expenditure limit; excessive contributions

The Enforcement Priority System (EPS) rates all incoming cases against objective
criteria to determine whether they warrant use of the Commissions limited resources.

Cases dismissed under EPS fall into two categories: low-rated cases and stale cases.
Low rated cases are those that do not warrant use of the Commissions resources to
pursue because of their lower significance relative to other pending matters. Stale cases
are those that initially received a higher rating but have remained unassigned for a
significant period due to a lack of staff resources for effective investigation. Effective
enforcement relies upon the timely pursuit of complaints and referrals to ensure
compliance with the law. Investigations concerning activity more remote in time usually
require a greater commitment of resources, primarily due to the fact that the evidence of
such activity becomes more difficult to develop as it ages. The utility of commencing an
investigation declines as these cases age, until they reach a point when activation of a
case would not be an efficient use of the Commissions resources. As cases reach this
point, they are recommended for dismissal.

Endorsement of a federal candidate outside the
organizations restricted class of members

DOCUMENTS ON PUBLIC RECORD:

General Counsels Report; certification of vote by
Commissioners (dated August 27, 2002)

13.

MUR 5086

RESPONDENTS:

(a) Federation for American Immigration Reform
("FAIR")

(b) Dr. John Tanton, Founder and Chairman, FAIR

(c) Michigan Immigration Political Action Committee ("MichImpac")

(d) American Immigration Control Foundation ("AICF")

(e) Pioneer Fund

(f) Coalition for the Future American Worker

(g) Americans for Better Immigration

COMPLAINANT:

Raymond M. Kethledge, Counsel, Abraham Senate 2000

SUBJECT:

Corporate contributions

DOCUMENTS ON PUBLIC RECORD:

General Counsels Report; certification of vote by
Commissioners (dated August 27, 2002)

14.

MUR 5191

RESPONDENTS:

(a) Democratic State Central Committee, Katherine Moret,
treasurer

(b) President William Clinton

(c) Gore/Lieberman Inc., Jose Villarreal, treasurer

COMPLAINANT:

Carol L. Peet

SUBJECT:

Use of government resources for federal election

DOCUMENTS ON PUBLIC RECORD:

General Counsels Report; certification of vote by
Commissioners (dated August 27, 2002)

*There are four administrative stages to the FEC enforcement process:

1. Receipt of proper complaint

3. "Probable cause" stage

2. "Reason to believe" stage

4. Conciliation stage

It requires the votes of at least four of the six Commissioners to take any action. The
FEC can close a case at any point after reviewing a complaint. If a violation is found and
conciliation cannot be reached, then the FEC can institute a civil court action against a
respondent.